The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 445

What British unit liberated Poland in 1945??


Harry
16 Dec 2009 #271
Don't know how it arose, but all Polish servicemen who served with the British were invited to take part.

That isn't actually the case. In addition to the invitation sent to the official government of Poland, only representatives of the Polish RAF squadrons which had taken part in the Battle of Britain were invited. It was the same for all non-Commonwealth/Empire nations.

apart from the immense aid Poles gave to UK during BoB

A grand total of 89 Polish pilots flew in the Polish RAF squadrons (300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons; 302 and 303 Fighter Squadrons) during the Battle of Britain. Eighty-nine is an interesting number, it is also the number of members of the Polish armed forces in the west who had formerly been members of the German armed forces: 'Eighty-nine' as in "Eighty-nine thousand Poles were in the German armed forces before joining the Polish armed forces in the west". So the aid given to the German armed forces by Poles was a thousand times greater than the aid given to the British during the Battle of Britain. Funny how you Poles never talk about that.

That is a lie, only squadron 303 was invited.

You're lying again. Pilots from 300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons and 302 and 303 Fighter Squadrons were invited. Along with the invitation sent to the official government of Poland.

Tony Blair apologised for that btw,

Any you are lying yet again. Tony Blair made no such apology. You are pathetic.
enkidu 7 | 623
16 Dec 2009 #272
A grand total of 89 Polish pilots flew in the Polish RAF squadrons (300 and 301 Bomber Squadrons; 302 and 303 Fighter Squadrons) during the Battle of Britain

Thats interesting if you take under consideration that total number of casualties in Polish Air forces in the UK (of course not all were the pilots) is around 4000.

For me it seems that some of these 89 pilots were forced to die many, many times. (lol)
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #273
enkidu

You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #274
Thats interesting if you take under consideration that total number of casualties in Polish Air forces in the UK (of course not all were the pilots) is around 4000.

Have you heard of a thing called sources? You can throw as many numbers and wild claims about as you want: sources show what facts were and show up your pathetic lies. Which is why you can't support your lies about Britain stealing Polish gold.

However, this source confirms that only 89 Poles flew in the Battle of Britain,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Air_force
this source ealing.gov.uk/services/leisure/local_history/historic_buildings/polish_war_memorial.html
tells us that the memorial to Poles killed while fighting with the western command forces has 1,902 names on it (i.e. less than half the number you claim in your latest lie) and this source confirms that 89,300 Poles deserted from German armed forces and joined the western command forces.

I won't bother following Jon's lead and asking you for sources. I know you're lying, you know you're lying, we all know you're lying.
1jola 14 | 1,879
16 Dec 2009 #275
Like it or not, the PRL was recognised by the international community.

Why was an illegitimite Soviet goverment recognized? The international community should have recognized Hans Frank as the Polish President then also, no? Forget the gold for a minute. Did Britain have anything to do with selling their ally to slavery?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,447
16 Dec 2009 #276
Why was an illegitimite Soviet goverment recognized? The international community should have recognized Hans Frank as the Polish President then also, no?

Because Germany was the baddie and the Soviets were the chums back then...remember?
Without them you would still be under Hans Franks boot...
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #277
Why was an illegitimite Soviet goverment recognized?

Because it was in effective control of the country and wasn't disputed by neighbouring states and main trading partners. That is the usual basis for recognition.

The international community should have recognized Hans Frank as the Polish President then also, no?

You really think that? Dear God!

Neighbouring states (except the occupying country) didn't recognise them, there was no structure of government except by foreign military - not even a puppet state. It was a military occupation.

Forget the gold for a minute.

This part of the discussion is about precisely that.

Did Britain have anything to do with selling their ally to slavery?

I invite you here to Warsaw, I'll put the kettle on for a nice cup of tea, and then you can go round my neighbours, mostly retired hospital staff, and ask them if they were slaves for forty years. Maybe I'll film their reaction for Youtube. Could be quite a laugh.

enkidu
You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
16 Dec 2009 #278
enkidu
You still haven't provided any source for your lie that the British government stole the Polish pre-war gold reserve.

I knew it Harry! People stopped responding to you and you made another account, well this one gets ignored too, you're rather pathetic chum:)
Torq
16 Dec 2009 #279
"Eighty-nine thousand Poles were in the German armed forces before joining the Polish armed forces in the west".

I knew three such men, who served in Wehrmacht - they were all Kashubuans
("Kaschubenvolk") forcefully drawn into the German army. There were thousands
of Kaschubians, Silesians ("Schlesienvolk"), Mazurs ("Masurenvolk") who were forced
to serve in Wehrmacht and took the first opportunity to desert and join the Polish
armed forces in the west.

If you knew the stories of those men and the way they were treated (even after
joining the Wehrmacht) and how they "served" the Germans, you would stop talking
nonsense about "Poles giving aid to German forces".

So the aid given to the German armed forces by Poles was a thousand times greater than the aid given to the British during the Battle of Britain.

Do you really see no difference between fighting willfully for Britain by Polish pilots
and being forcefully drawn in a humiliating way to Wehrmacht? Because it seems
to me that you put the equation mark between these two situations, calling them
both "giving aid by Poles" to British and German armed forces, which is stupid, even
by your standards, Harry.
jonni 16 | 2,485
16 Dec 2009 #280
Sokrates

LOL. I'm not Harry.

But I do care about it when some eejit says my country stole Poland's entire pre-war gold reserves than refuses to back it up with anything, except a receipt for the return of the gold to the National Bank of Poland.

Accusations of theft are serious. Accusations of theft on a huge international scale are very serious.
Harry
16 Dec 2009 #281
Why was an illegitimite Soviet goverment recognized?

Perhaps you should ask the only nation which you have ever wanted to join: the USA. They recognised the Warsaw (well, Lodz actually) government as the official government before the British did. As an American, how does that make you feel?

Did Britain have anything to do with selling their ally to slavery?

What was the price that Britain sold Poland for? We know what the price was when Poland sold her ally Ukraine to the Soviets.

I invite you here to Warsaw

He's already here Jon. However he wasn't here for communism.

I knew it Harry!

Good to see that you still can't debate against me. I'm still waiting for those police you promised were coming to arrest me.
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
16 Dec 2009 #282
Did Britain have anything to do with selling their ally to slavery?

No FFS.

2 - S u p e r p o w e r s . - B r i t a i n - w a s - n o t - a - s u p e r p o w e r.

I will say it slowly so you might understand.
1jola 14 | 1,879
17 Dec 2009 #283
Absolute Bollocks. You were sold out by your own traitors, not the British. Was Britain a superpower at the end of WW2?

No, it had no influence. The Soviets, Polish communists and the Americans are to blame.

Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin. The only one missing was Hitler.

Because Germany was the baddie and the Soviets were the chums back then...remember?
Without them you would still be under Hans Franks boot...

There wasn't much difference between Frank and the Soviet citizen Bierut as far as independent Poland went.

I invite you here to Warsaw, I'll put the kettle on for a nice cup of tea, and then you can go round my neighbours, mostly retired hospital staff, and ask them if they were slaves for forty years. Maybe I'll film their reaction for Youtube. Could be quite a laugh.

A laugh indeed. A foreigner taking me around in my home town to learn reality of communism. Maybe you could teach me how to make pierogi. LOL

There is always a chance that your neighbours are living in a flat stolen by communists from my family.

Your post is as funny as learning Polish history from Jews:

Poland became Christian very late, only at the turn of the 11th century, and only then did it join the European community of nations (so to speak). After that, it took a couple of hundred years before Poland started to emerge as a nation-state with strong development potential.

If you want to develop your country economically and culturally, who do you need?

You need Jews.

For more comedy read on here:
aish.com/jl/h/48952111.html
jonni 16 | 2,485
17 Dec 2009 #284
Maybe you could teach me how to make pierogi. LOL

Gladly, except pierogi frankly aren't worth making.

There is always a chance that your neighbours are living in a flat stolen by communists from my family.

Unlikely since they were built in 1962.

Your post is as funny as learning Polish history from Jews:

Sooner or later, in this case sooner, the racism starts. :-(

In the quote you cited, is there even one factual error? No.
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
17 Dec 2009 #285
Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin. The only one missing was Hitler.

You are stupid if you think Churchill had any say.

Stick to your version of reality but promise you will stay in Warsaw and come no where near Lodz.

Ignorant people cause wars and problems.
Harry
17 Dec 2009 #286
You are stupid if you think Churchill had any say.

Not stupid, just Polish. Poles tend to blame Britain for 1945 and absolve the almighty USA completely. Add in the fact that 1Jola is a Polish holder of a US passport and you might begin to see why he's even keener than the average Pole to blame Churchill (and to overlook the fact that Churchill wasn't even the leader of the British government when WWII ended, as well as the fact that Churchill ordered plans to be drawn up in 1945 for an invasion of Poland).
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,961
17 Dec 2009 #287
the PRL was recognised internationally as the government of Poland.

That's why Poles feel betrayed by U.K :)
Ofcourse that's going into details, most just like to say it's becouase of one parade but people like Harry don't get that.

Because Germany was the baddie and the Soviets were the chums back then...remember?
Without them you would still be under Hans Franks boot...

Noo.. it was Becaouse of president Roosewelts policy towards Stalin and SU. If it wasn't for him grrr

If I don't have to remind you the U.S.A had the control of western Europe after WW2 and had everything to say. Especially after some "loans"
Harry
17 Dec 2009 #288
That's why Poles feel betrayed by U.K :)

What would you prefer the British to have done? Not recognised Poland has having a real government for 45 years?
caprice49 4 | 224
17 Dec 2009 #289
That's why Poles feel betrayed by U.K

Churchill made a pact in 1943 in Teheran to hand over the eastern part of Poland. How can they not feel betrayed. Churchill acted in the interest of UK but at the expense of the Poles who believed they were fighting for their country. Some ally!!
Harry
17 Dec 2009 #290
And in exchange Poland got the 'recovered' territories in the west.

One things that you forget, as do most Poles and almost all Plastic Poles, is that the present borders of Poland were first proposed by a certain General Sikorski back in 1942. Perhaps that is why the British killed him: so that they could silence him, steal his plan and then take the credit for selling out Poland!
1jola 14 | 1,879
17 Dec 2009 #291
And in exchange Poland got the 'recovered' territories in the west.

If I put you in a concentration camp, will you be happy that now you live in a large "house" with a big yard instead of a small flat?
Harry
17 Dec 2009 #292
The British put exactly the same number of Poles in British concentration camps as the number of British people who were put into Polish concentration camps.

Or do you mean that Britain turned Poland into a concentration camp? If so, please explain, in detail, what you would have like Britain to do to help Poland in 1945. Remember that the nation you wanted to join refused to do anything to help Poland in 1945 and did very little in 1944.
Steveramsfan 2 | 306
17 Dec 2009 #293
Churchill made a pact in 1943 in Teheran to hand over the eastern part of Poland. How can they not feel betrayed. Churchill acted in the interest of UK but at the expense of the Poles who believed they were fighting for their country. Some ally!!

The decision was made in 1945(Yalta). Stalin put it forward in 1943(Tehran).

Churchill made no such pact. It was the USA that "!!***TOLD***!!" Britain it was going to happen along the "Curzon line"
Nathan 18 | 1,363
19 Dec 2009 #294
Churchill made a pact in 1943 in Teheran to hand over the eastern part of Poland.

You, probably, wanted to say the lands occupied by Poland since 1920. Betrayed? Haha. You may say that about Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Poland invaded it with Nazi Germany. That is a betrayal all right.

If I put you in a concentration camp, will you be happy that now you live in a large "house" with a big yard instead of a small flat?

That's what you did in 1349 and 1920 in Ukraine. Plus you burnt the flat, demolished the walls and said that the inhabitants have no right to pray and read.

Don't invade what isn't yours at the first place, so you don't have the reason to sniffle later about some "betrayal" on the British part. Grow up, son.
Ironside 50 | 10,922
19 Dec 2009 #295
Don't invade

still spreading lies?
At last you're presenting fork, seal of devils owns P
Borrka 37 | 594
19 Dec 2009 #296
hat's what you did in 1349 and 1920 in Ukraine.

It's demagogy pure to use the same political standards while comparing some medieval and present events.
According to Kievian chronicles both Poles and Ukrainians used to start local wars every year and armed raids made a noble form of entertainment lol.

BTW. Poles and Ukrainians hardly existed in the modern understanding of a nation.

As for 1920 ... what was wrong about the idea of the Polish - Ukrainian cooperation ?
And before you say "perfidious betrayal" ask yourself about Poland's military potential after the bloody 1920 campaign and political power of Petlura.

You may say that about Czechoslovakia in 1938

Interesting.
You are using Soviet propaganda tricks.
Now you should tell us about "liberation" of the Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia.
Using stupid (and lamentable) Polish aggression and annexation of 800 square kilometer to counterbalance Soviet mass killings and death of more than one million people deported to Kazakhstan is simple not fair.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
19 Dec 2009 #297
It's demagogy pure to use the same political standards while comparing some medieval and present events.

Well, isn't that exactly the way how the historic right of Poland to certain areas in Europe is always explained by some people on this forum? ;)
Nathan 18 | 1,363
19 Dec 2009 #298
Interesting.
You are using Soviet propaganda tricks.

It is interesting. You might as well tell me about "liberation" by the Soviet army of Poland in 1944-45. I am not talking about who was better and who was worse, what side brought or would have brought less damage and murders. What the Soviet regime did in Ukraine and Poland was beyond horrible, no doubt about it. But all I am saying is that you have no right to that territory whatsoever and sniffling that the British betrayed you is not right. Nobody betrayed you. Is it the Soviet propaganda that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia in October of 1938? You signed an agreement with Czechs in 1925 stipulating the demarcation of the lands to be within each country. The Czechs even went on many consessions in regards to Poland. But nevertheless, Poland using increasing power of Nazis in Europe (which could have been curbed if Europe in general was less pus*ycattish and if Poland didn't make Germany even bolder at that moment by issuing unjust demands to Czechoslovakia) BETRAYED the agreement of 13 years earlier and bit a chunk of the Czech land.

Polish - Ukrainian cooperation

Cooperation is usually good. I have nothing against it. It failed then, but now it seems to move in the right direction and I am happy about it :)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
19 Dec 2009 #299
Ok lets cooperate, we take back Lwów and you work on our fields as peasants just like good old times:)
Nathan 18 | 1,363
19 Dec 2009 #300
Excellent idea, Sok.
(*Nathan looks at his shining pitchfork in the corner and a sickle. It brings him back into the past when Socrates used to visit him. "Will he come back, will he visit me again?" Nathan looks through the window and ,as usual, only empty wind blows from the western border.*)

Home / History / What British unit liberated Poland in 1945??
Discussion is closed.